Master’s Thesis Entrepreneurship and
Innovation
Developing Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
How, if at all, SpeedUP! Europe programme contributes to creating a
Dutch Entrepreneurial Ecosystem? The case of The Netherlands
Name: Kimberli Habon Student number: 10827935
Study: Master's in Business Administration Specialization: Entrepreneurship and Innovation Institution: University of Amsterdam
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Kimberli Habon who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Tsvi Vinig for the useful comments, remarks and engagement through the learning process of this master thesis. He helped me by guiding through the whole thesis, and helped me reach the appropriate people. Furthermore, I would like to thank Ronald Kleverlaan for giving access to the contacts and introducing me to the interviewees, as well for the all support on the way.
Also, I wish to thank all the participants in my qualitative research, who have willingly shared their precious time during the process of interviewing. As an international student living abroad, I experienced difficult times, especially at the beginning of the thesis. I was not sure whether I could find enough participants for my interviews, but due to all the help, and support I received I was able to realize it.
Finally, I would like to thank my family and closest friends, who have supported me throughout entire process, both by keeping me harmonious and helping me put the pieces together. Without their financial and emotional support, I would not have been able to start and finish my master abroad.
Abstract
The term Entrepreneurial Ecosystem - which has gained a lot of attention, recently - is relatively new in academic literature. The term refers to an interdependent set of actors that is governed in such a way that it enables entrepreneurial action. Due to its novelty, the number of studies related to this topic is limited, however continuously expanding. The purpose of this thesis is to identify the key interdependent pillars of entrepreneurship ecosystems, define how these pillars can be observed in The Netherlands, and analyze whether SpeedUP! Europe, a ground-breaking and disruptive acceleration and support programme of the European Union can contribute to the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems in The Netherlands. After identifying the key factors that emerged during the programme, it was possible to answer whether such initiatives are necessary, whether they can create value and stimulate productive entrepreneurship, or the holistic approach to such ecosystems is already working smoothly. It was interesting to see how elements such as cultural support, accessible markets, regulatory frameworks, support mechanisms, education, universities and the access to capital could be observed through different viewpoints and understand how each can either add value, or raise barriers to entrepreneurship in The Netherlands.
Keywords: Entrepreneurship, The Netherlands, Entrepreneurial ecosystem, Startup,
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ... 7
1.1 Research question and objectives ... 8
2. Literature review ... 9
2.1. Entrepreneurial Ecosystem – theoretical background ... 9
2.2 Recent theories of entrepreneurial ecosystem ... 11
2.3 The eight key pillars of the entrepreneurial ecosystem ... 13
2.4. Accessible markets ... 14
2.5. Government and Regulatory Framework ... 15
2.6. Support systems ... 17
2.7. Starting a business in the lean start-up era ... 20
2.8. Entrepreneurship in The Netherlands ... 22
2.8.1. Macroeconomic performance indicators ... 22
2.8.2. The Dutch Entrepreneurship Paradox ... 23
2.8.3. The Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in The Netherlands ... 24
2.8.4. Startup Ecosystems in Amsterdam ... 26
2.9. The SpeedUP! Europe Programme ... 28
3. Methodology ... 31
3.1. Semi-structured interviews ... 32
3.2. Secondary data ... 34
4. Research findings ... 35
4.4. Regulatory framework ... 40
4.4.1. Bureaucracy and Administration ... 40
4.4.2. Milestones ... 41
4.4.3. The Hamburg Hub ... 42
4.5. Support mechanisms ... 44
4.5.1. The Amsterdam Hub ... 44
4.5.2. FIWARE accelerator ... 46
4.5.3. Network of entrepreneurial peers ... 47
4.5.4. Grant from the European Union ... 49
4.5.5. Coaches and mentors ... 51
4.6. Entrepreneur-specific trainings and education ... 52
4.7. Universities as catalysts ... 52
4.8. Providing access to capital ... 53
5. Discussion ... 55
6. Conclusion ... 61
7. References ... 63
1. Introduction
The concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems is relatively new both among academics and policy makers (OECD report, 2013), but the amount of academic papers, journal articles and researches that deal with the topic is rapidly growing. The concept should be approached in a holistic way, which places the entrepreneur in the center.
It is important to highlight that entrepreneurs are not the only key actors of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems; however they are the ones who lead them. The term refers to an interdependent and interconnected set of actors next to potential and existing entrepreneurs – such as organizations, institutions and processes that is governed in such a way that it enables entrepreneurial action (Stam, 2014).
Entrepreneurial employee activity performs relatively well in The Netherlands (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2014), but this form of entrepreneurship does not necessarily take place in start-ups or in high growth firms, since employees in established corporations can pursue entrepreneurial opportunities as well. The Netherlands is an ideal location for startups due to its strategic geographical location; it has an international business and competitive fiscal climate, which is extremely open for innovation and creativity, not to mention the multilingual workforce and the penetration of the English language (Startup Delta, 2015).
A profound description of the theory of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems will be followed by a thorough explanation of the ecosystem in The Netherlands, which provides a basis for testing the elements of the ecosystem under scrutiny with the involvement of different stakeholders participating in the SpeedUP! Europe programme.
1.1 Research question and objectives
This Master’s Thesis concentrates on the topic of Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in The
Netherlands, with a focus on the SpeedUP! Europe programme, supported by the European Union. The relevant articles give an introduction to, and consequently a better
understanding of the subject.
The goal is to investigate how, if at all, SpeedUP! Europe programme contributes to the acceleration of productive entrepreneurship and innovation in the country, and whether it adds value to the pillars of the ecosystem. With regard to all these the main question the current research seeks to answer is the following:
Does SpeedUP! Europe programme contribute to creating a Dutch Entrepreneurial Ecosystem, or does it destroy an already developed, smoothly operating mechanism?
The objective of the research is to find a correlation between the elements of the entrepreneurial ecosystem and the SpeedUP! Europe programme, and identify – if possible – each pillar to see whether they have an effect on such ecosystems or not. The question is whether the project in question coordinated by the European Union – in which The Netherlands is deeply involved – can create a positive effect on the growth of entrepreneurial activity, and contribute to the creation of successful and sustainable startup ecosystems.
2. Literature review
To give a deeper insight into the topic, it is important to use literature that deals with the importance of entrepreneurial ecosystems, discussing its key pillars, and their relevance among entrepreneurs. Furthermore, the literature gives an insight into the ecosystem in The Netherlands, and provides background information about the SpeedUP! Europe programme.
2.1. Entrepreneurial Ecosystem – theoretical background
There is a wide range of literature dealing with the concept of stimulating entrepreneurship, linking it to economic growth. Development is strongly related to entrepreneurship, where the government, the private and the non-profit sectors have a significant role in creating a fertile environment for new venture creation. In the review of literature I include different approaches to entrepreneurial ecosystems, each with their own framework.
Firstly, the term “entrepreneurial ecosystem” needs to be defined. It is clear that there is an ecosystem around the entrepreneur that facilitates entrepreneurship, and a holistic approach is needed to understand the concept. In their article Suresh and Jaman (2012), clearly define the existence of external factors that play a significant role. Before defining the concept of the “entrepreneurial ecosystem” let us divide the phrase into two words. Each needs to be defined separately before we can start interpreting the correlation between them. Entrepreneurship is a process by which opportunities to create novel goods and services are discovered, evaluated and exploited. The second component, the ‘ecosystem’ can be
environment. Here obviously we look at the ‘ecosystem’ in a figurative sense, and putting the two words together will emphasize that entrepreneurial activity takes place in a community of interdependent actors that is governed in a way that it enables entrepreneurial action (Stam, 2014).
Early researches focusing on the topic of ecosystem concentrated mainly on personality traits (intelligence, lifestyle, talent) and characteristics of the entrepreneur, believing that the psychological factors can be the main motivating factors of creating an ecosystem (Suresh - Ramraj, 2012). However, the success of a venture just partly relies on the personal attributes of the entrepreneur, while external factors - which are beyond the control of individuals - are more likely to be responsible for success. The authors state that entrepreneurial ecosystems can generate wealth, if the individuals, the enterprise and the society are integrated.
Valdez (1988) formed an ecosystem framework where – although he mentions external factors as well - he still assigns a great importance to personality. He made effort to understand the economic environmental factors that influence the decision to launch a new business, by analyzing the relationship between the entrepreneur and the environment. He focuses on three main elements, the entrepreneur himself and his complex personality, the immediate environment including capital, land, facilities etc., and the current market circumstances taking macro and micro conditions into consideration. The core finding of the article is that a would-be entrepreneur is likely to be more entrepreneurial, and the market situation is more favourable, if a region is equipped with entrepreneurship-friendly features.
The “entrepreneurial infrastructure” defined by Van De Ven (2002) facilitates and constraints entrepreneurship. This infrastructure includes “institutional arrangements to legitimate, regulate, and standardize a new technology; public resource endowments of basic scientific knowledge, financing mechanism, a pool of competent labour, as well as
proprietary R&D, manufacturing, marketing, and distribution functions by private entrepreneurial firms to commercialize the innovation for profit” (Van De Ven, 2002, pp. 211).
Neck et al. (2004) identified two key components that are considered to be the “heart” of entrepreneurial ecosystem (see Figure 1.). The first is the incubators’ role in the spin-off and start-up activities. They can have an either implicit or explicit role for a new company. The second refers to the region itself, the factors that influence start-up activities, such as the formal and informal networks, physical infrastructure and culture. The formal network consists of the universities, government-given subsidies, incentives; professional and support services like tax and legal consultants, capital services such as business angels or venture capital firms, a high-tech talent pool consisting qualified employees, and large established companies. According to the research in the article (67% of the respondents identified as being significant) informal networks are important parts of the ecosystem insomuch as they add some form of value in a way, and facilitate the evolution of the ecosystem, and start-ups. S u c h a network includes friends, family members, colleagues, and other types of informal relations, where trust plays a big role. The physical infrastructure such roads, office space, real estate etc., is defined as the tangible element of the country’s infrastructure. Finally, the role of culture is considered to be important because it makes the organization unique, is important to develop, and difficult to replicate.
2.2 Recent theories of entrepreneurial ecosystem
new ecosystem approach from earlier ones mentioned before, is the spatial proximity of resources, uniqueness, sustainability, and comprehensiveness (Isenberg, 2010,2011). In his articles, he grouped the ecosystem into six main domains, as shown in Figure 2. These domains are facilitating policies from the government and leadership, including public universities and research institutes that have an important role in creating knowledge, the regulatory bodies that are responsible for the implementation of incentives, such as tax benefits and the removal of bureaucratic barriers in order to foster business development. The second domain is the access to financial capital, which are private institutions in charge of entrepreneurship funding, namely venture capital funds, angel investors, seed capital etc.
A supportive culture is an important element that consists of all societal characteristics of a community and perceived through success stories and societal norms. For instance, the fear of failure among people is a common limiting factor against entrepreneurship. Institutional and infrastructural support has a key role in creating an ecosystem and non-governmental institutions are important entrepreneurship stimulators as well. These can be hubs, accelerators and incubators, and also support professions like accounting and law firms that provide help to the establishment of new ventures. A relevant human capital that includes professionals, the mass work force, and the educational institutions is equally essential. The last domain is the market, which consists of networks (entrepreneurs' network, diaspora network etc.) and early customers. “It is
important to have an existing consumer mass ready to purchase new products and disseminate them via domestic and international contact network” (La Rovere, Ozório, de
Jesus Melo, 2015). It is important to mention that the ecosystem is only complete, and development will only occur, if these different elements are handled altogether.
ecosystem that can be a barrier of the emergence. The principal findings of the article state that the biggest challenges of growth are (1) access to talent, (2) excessive bureaucracy, and (3) scarce early stage capital. It highlights the indirect importance of banks, of large corporations, and the fact that entrepreneurs are not only actors that drive the ecosystem, but a network of many different stakeholders as well. The strength of an entrepreneurial ecosystem is not necessary attributed to either an increased number of start-ups or to the creation of co-working spaces. All in all, he believes that the creation of a strong entrepreneurial ecosystem is based on a holistic approach and all factors should be integrated into a system in order to create a fertile ground for entrepreneurship.
2.3 The eight key pillars of the entrepreneurial ecosystem
The Report Summary of The World Economic Forum, written in collaboration with Stanford University, E&Y and Endeavor (2013) identified eight key pillars that contribute to an entrepreneurial ecosystem. There is a huge overlap between Isenberg’s findings and the results concluded in the report (Figure 3). The article provides a better insight into the opinion of entrepreneurs, by making a survey where they were asked to prioritize the eight key pillars, in order to find out, which is considered to be most important for them, in relation to the growth of business. Interestingly, accessible markets, human capital/workforce and funding and financing were the three pillars of the ecosystem that scored the highest. High score means that these factors are considered as being the most important for the growth of early- stage companies.
The survey took place globally, starting from Silicon Valley in the U.S. to Europe, and all over Asia. In this case, the findings about Europe are considered as relevant, since
thesis is based on their responses as well. The table showing the result of the Heat Map of the “Most Important Pillars for the Growth/Success of the Company Entrepreneurial Ecosystems by Continent/Region” is quite homogeneous, especially when Europe is compared with Silicon Valley.
It is clear that a successful entrepreneurial ecosystem should be entrepreneur driven, should have a long-term focus, and should be inclusive to anyone who wants to participate. This includes all possibilities, where would-be entrepreneurs have a chance to effectuate their dreams, and other stakeholders of the ecosystem who contribute to realizing it. There are several chances like meetings, workshops, festivals, and events that create opportunities for the actors to meet with each other, and keep the ecosystem running.
2.4. Accessible markets
The availability of accessible markets is crucial for startups, and companies at an early stage. The pillar includes the number and category of the potential customers, and whether they are foreign or local ones, so can be found on the domestic market. For a new product it is extremely important to find new customers that can be the “ecosystem feeders” who are responsible for stimulating entrepreneurship. Investors, service providers, associations, public organizations, large companies, Small/ Medium- sized enterprises, or the Government can serve as a customer as well.
Companies take an important role, especially as leverage for early-stage companies in their growth and development. First of all, large companies create jobs and give employment to a numerous workforce. They are scalable, can easily attract venture capital, and have a broad geographical reach (Pretet, 2013). But how can start-ups, and early-stage companies’ benefit from creating a productive relationship with large companies?
of the products creates customer engagement. They can generate huge revenues and credibility by being early adopters. Building credibility is extremely important, when the start-up is seeking for new customers, such as SMEs or governments. Large companies can also incorporate the start-up’s product in their own portfolio, which will broaden the customer reach of the start-up on the one hand, and by displaying their brand and references it can also add value. Large ventures can be strategic investors and/or financing partners by providing value added services and can take a role as mentors and advisors, in order to give an insight into new markets. They can help them bring their products to markets as distributors, resellers or logistics partners, and can enhance operating capability by giving access to assets that would have been too expensive. These include access to manufacturing, software, technology and know-how. Finally licensing in or out to large companies help startups to access and use technologies already developed, and to access large scale testing, manufacturing or distribution. (Drexler, 2014).
2.5. Government and Regulatory Framework
One of the most important components of entrepreneurial ecosystems is government policy, and the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems has received increasing attention from policy makers. Regulatory policies can have both positive and negative impact on the growth of new ventures. Government should design policies that empower private actors rather than public ones, and facilitates the growth of the ecosystem. There are several roles the government can play in an ecosystem, just like creating entrepreneurship friendly conditions on a national level, and facilitation network and connections on a local level. These involve education (international studies), fundamental scientific research, tax incentives, employment protection legislation, products market legislation, and bankruptcy
The aim of government policies is to create strategies for entrepreneurship that are “growth oriented”, and have a focus on increasing the total number of firms with business startup programs, venture capital financing and investments in research and development and technology transfer. Active involvement is needed from Government Ministers, and the policies they create should focus on the ecosystem holistically instead of just picking out elements of it. This means that policies should take into consideration not only business and entrepreneurship, but also taxation, financial services, telecommunications education etc.. It is important to build on existing industries, rather than create new ones. Additionally, all industry sectors should be taken into account, not only just high-tech firms. Policies should address both the needs of the businesses and their management teams. Finally, a top-down and bottom-up approach is needed, so both macro and micro level policies are required to create sustainable growth in the ecosystem (Mazzarol, 2014).
The following table adapted from Mason and Brown (2014) presents the policy points of focus for entrepreneurial ecosystems; illustrating and summarizes the recommendations of policies mentioned above:
2.6. Support systems
As it has been mentioned before, business incubators and accelerators - as part of the ecosystem - play an important role when a company is in its early stage. In the discussion paper of Miller and Bound (2011) we can get an insight into the rise of accelerator programs. In the article, they define five main characteristics that distinguish accelerators from business incubators. The first of these features is the open application process to everybody, which makes the whole procedure highly competitive. The program focuses on small teams rather than individuals, and they can receive a pre-seed investment (usually in exchange for equity), and a time limited support (3-6 months), which includes programmed events and intensive mentoring. One of the first accelerators was the “Y Combinator “ that created a new model for funding early stage start-ups. It helped companies like Dropbox or Airbnb to rise. Their goal is to get start-ups off the ground, figuring out the biggest problems they face and find a product market-fit.
The rise of accelerator programs is related to economic changes. The costs associated with early stage start-ups have dropped significantly, and investment can be made with a small amount of money. These programs are beneficial for angel and venture capital investors because it creates a “pipeline” of investable companies. Angel investors can get involved and make better decisions about the companies to invest in at the end of the program. Aernoudt (2004) deals with the topic of business incubators and the role of business angels. The information in this article is important because it gives a better understanding of the significance of the different actors in business that can provide financing and mentoring to start-ups. The paper highlights the problem of the underdevelopment of seed financing in Europe that leads to the lack of entrepreneurial activity. The paper concentrates on the dynamic process of incubation, and the importance of close links between business angel
Another advantage of acceleration is that ‘batches of companies’ are invested in at the same time, and this is what distinguishes them from other early-stage investments. This provides a “peer environment” for the teams, where they can help each other, exchange ideas, and develop.
Currently the demand for acceleration programs is really high, the environment since the “dot-com boom” has changed significantly, which is in favour of building tech start-ups. Investors can improve the performance of their portfolio with this type of incubation, and big companies often develop in-house incubators to support new companies. Kim and Wagman deal with the emergence of start-up accelerators in two articles (2012). They say that there have been significant changes in the early-stage finances of new ventures. Traditionally start-ups nurtured in business incubators (universities, non-profit organizations, local government etc.) and the primary source of funding was Venture Capital (VC). However, new trends are on stage and VC firms are more likely to move to larger and later stage funding, which has led to the emergence of a new form of entrepreneurial nurturing and equity financing, known as start-up accelerators. The aim of these articles is to find out the incentives of the start-up accelerators and reveal the inconsistencies. They compare them with the traditional incubators and VC firms, revealing the potential advantages and disadvantages.
On the other hand there are some pitfalls of business incubation that the members often fail to realize in time. In his article published in Harvard Business Review (2013) Sramana points out the problems with incubators, and gives some possible solutions. He states that most of the business incubators around the world fail. Companies “need to
provide real value, not just office space, and they need to measure success in more than just outside funding”. Real value manifests itself in additional services like business
create a business with validated market opportunity, where customers are willing to pay for their product. The other problem is connected with funding, that is often considered to be the major success metric, however it is equally important to obtain customer validation by finding a repeatable scalable business model around the product or service, and provide education.
What is also considered to be important in this topic is to find out the steps the European Union can take in order to boost entrepreneurship in Europe. The article by Hoffmann (2011) concentrates on the difficulties the European Union has to face in connection with entrepreneurship. The main problem is that there is not enough entrepreneurial activity within the EU, although it is a core element of economic growth, and the EU must take actions in order to transform its economy and build competitive strength.
There are several policy challenges it must tackle, and actions need to be taken. The main problem it identifies is that there is more entrepreneurial potential within the EU than exploited, and it gives examples in comparison with the US, assuming that successful entrepreneurship is more likely to take place there. The EU fails to encourage enough people to take risks and start up new businesses. This is shown in the low potential of the expansion rate of start-ups, the lack of opportunities to test the market, or the inappropriate entrepreneurial business environment. The article defines the factors affecting entrepreneurship both on a micro and macroeconomic level, like the opportunities that create value, the skills, capital, incentives, motivation, and various macroeconomic conditions (e.g. unemployment rate). The core finding of the paper is the lack of growth of new firms in Europe. The paper identifies the real policy challenges of the EU with a comparative analysis of the US, and the areas where reforms are needed, just like in restart possibilities, labour market regulation, venture capital, exit market or entrepreneurship education.
2.7. Starting a business in the lean start-up era
Nowadays starting a business has arrived to a new era. Would-be entrepreneurs have the chance to realize their business ideas, by taking advantage of today’s new opportunities. Establishing a business in the digital sector requires a lower amount of seed investment, than in the past. The idea behind this is that once an entrepreneur (or a team of entrepreneurs) has identified a niche in the market, has found a potential solution to a unique need for future customers, and uses it as a basis for his idea he can build it in a short run with the existing and accessible technologies. He is able to launch a Minimum Viable
Product (MVP), and measure the impact on users, analyze the data, and refine them
by iterations. This is a cycle consisting of three phases (Pretet, 2013).
When the testing is ready, the second step is to team up with start-up accelerators in order to further develop of the idea (early examples: Y-Combinator, TechStars). Start-ups receive a pre-seed investment, and human capital injection, and after a specific period of time they will be ready for new sources of financial capital. It is really difficult to receive funding because these are considered scarce resources, and the highly competitive environment will make it even more challenging to obtain financial capital. There are several fund-raising opportunities such as crowd funding (e.g. KickStarter) or pre-financing platforms, Venture Capital or Business Angels for early-stage investments. This whole process is called the ‘Lean Start- Up” (Pretet, 2013).
Traditionally, the following steps are taken to establish a business: 1. Write a business plan
2. Pitch it to investors 3. Assemble a team 4. Introduce a product
5. Bring it to market and sell it
One main disadvantage of this “formula” is that the risk of failure is extremely high. A recent research by Shikhar Gosh – senior lecturer at Harvard Business School – proved that three out of four venture backed start-ups do not return investor’s capital in the U.S (Gage, 2012). The lean start-up method is considered to be less risky for several reasons. First of all, it supports experimentation, customer feedback, and iterative design. This is far away from what is perceived to be “conventional entrepreneurship”. The lean start-up incorporates the idea of “failing fast” and “learning continually” by adapting, iterating, improving and learning from customers, which can significantly improve the success rate of new venture creation.
Entrepreneurs in the lean start-up need to create a Business Model Canvas (see Figure 5.), containing nine building blocks, which is a framework where they can summarize their hypotheses. Next, to test their assumptions, they start collecting data from potential users, partners or purchasers, in order to receive feedback. It is here that the cycle starts because after analyzing the data entrepreneurs revise their assumptions and start the testing all over again until they are satisfied with the results. After this comes the stage of “agile development” where MVP is tested. Entrepreneurs intending to found a lean start-up do not begin with a business plan; they begin by finding a business model (Blank, 2013).
Today, companies are facing a rapidly changing environment with globalization, disruptive technologies, and new regulations that they need to react to somehow. By fostering the creation of new ventures, would-be entrepreneurs are more likely to found companies, taking advantage of the new opportunities they have. There are no more long technology development cycles, nor high costs of getting the first customers. There are many chances for start-ups before seeking venture capital, like accelerator programs, that help them achieve their goals. With the use of open source software and cloud services, the costs of software development have become much cheaper (Blank, 2013).
2.8. Entrepreneurship in The Netherlands
2.8.1. Macroeconomic performance indicators
Entrepreneurship is considered to be really important in The Netherlands, one of the wealthiest countries in the world for centuries, having two “golden ages” in its history. Due to its productive entrepreneurship, the country became outstanding both in the 17th century (stock exchange, Bank of Amsterdam) and the late 19th century with the multinationals like Philips, Shell or Unilever.
Up to 2013, there has been a dramatic increase in several fields of economy in the country, which contributed and still contributes to the country's prosperity. The earning capacity and the labour productivity/hour have been rising, and the unemployment rates are relatively low, compared to other similar countries like Germany, Denmark or Belgium. What is seen is that the biggest corporations in The Netherlands lack dynamism, and have a decline in their employment size. This situation has both advantages and disadvantages. It does not have a positive effect on the national employment rate in general; however, it creates new opportunities for new firms who are in need of labour. Unfortunately, this employment is not
realized in new, high-growth start-ups, but in the rise of solo-self employment. The data (GEM) speaks for itself; the rate of low-growth oriented independent entrepreneurship is very high in The Netherlands, however the high-growth oriented solo entrepreneurship is not outstanding, just as the rate of high-growth firms compared to similar countries. These statements are also proved by the stagnation of gazelles (young, high-growth firms with at least 20 employees) after 2002 (KvK, 2009).
In the last decade there has been a rise in independent entrepreneurship in The Netherlands, also called the “Dutch Entrepreneurship Miracle”. However, this phrase needs some further explanation. Data gathered from the Global Entrepreneurship monitor proved that the Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity - which includes the percent of working age population who are about to start an entrepreneurial activity, or who have started one from a maximum of 3 and a half years - has more than doubled within a decade, reaching the level of 10% in 2012.
2.8.2. The Dutch Entrepreneurship Paradox
Public policies played a significant role in creating this fertile ground for entrepreneurship. However, the rise of entrepreneurship is not directly proportional with the level of innovation in the country, and this is considered to be the “Dutch Entrepreneurship Paradox”. Young, high-growth firms – seen as the generators of productive entrepreneurship - are the ones who increase innovativeness in the country, and their role in development and innovation is way more significant, compared to entrepreneurs operating in solo self- employment. Obviously, self-employment and new venture creation are beneficial for decreasing unemployment rate in The Netherlands, but it does not have a big influence on innovation and productivity (Stam, 2014).
The rise of entrepreneurship has been stimulated by several government policies and fiscal facilities, which have made the labour market more flexible and have been in favour of temporary and part-time labour, and the growth in the number of self-employed. The original purpose of these policies and regulations was to stimulate entrepreneurship and innovation at the same time to achieve economic growth.
2.8.3. The Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in The Netherlands
According to all issues mentioned above, t h e question arises: how can productive entrepreneurship paired with innovation be accelerated in The Netherlands? There are several propositions. Innovation has to be stimulated by interactions between sets of expertise at an optimal cognitive distance. Innovation should be stimulated by independent entrepreneurs in high-growth start-ups, by independent professionals in collectives of the self-employed, and by enabling entrepreneurial action for significant value creation by employees, a shift towards people's interaction to create new value.
The policy changes meant to transform the Dutch entrepreneurial ecosystem are derived from the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach shown in Figure 6 (Stam, 2014), illustrating the elements, outputs and outcomes.
The outputs namely the entrepreneurial activity is a process by which individuals pursue opportunities for innovation. In order to make innovation happen, there must be new value creation in the society, which is the outcome of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. The ecosystem can be decomposed into systemic and framework conditions. The formal, and informal institutions, and the physical infrastructure can either enable or constraint human interaction and entrepreneurial action. The culture and the demand for new value are also part of the framework conditions. The systemic conditions including networks enable a smooth division of labour and a flow of information and capital; leadership provides guidance and role models. Accessibility to finance has a crucial importance for investments in entrepreneurial projects that are uncertain, and have a long-term pay-off. Talent means a presence of diverse and skilled workforce, which is considered one of the most important elements of the ecosystem. Entrepreneurial opportunities can be found in new knowledge, both in public and private organizations. In order to lower the entry barriers for entrepreneurs, there are several support services operating in the ecosystem, consisting of all kinds of intermediaries.
Back to policy actions, the four framework conditions can be modified to stimulate entrepreneurship. The change i n formal institutions enables labour mobility, enhancing the circulation of talent, the recombination of knowledge as well as promoting cross-fertilization between areas of expertise. Opening up public demand for entrepreneurs to provide finance for new knowledge creation and application, stimulating a culture of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial leadership by incentivizing educational programs, provide role models, and communicate good practices. Finally, adapting or creating physical infrastructure in order to enhance knowledge circulation and networks, with the development of ‘third places’ between the actors is also important. These can be realized
can take place, not to mention networking and recruiting opportunities. If we look at all the a b o v e suggestions, w e can conclude that entrepreneurship plays a huge role in The Netherlands, but there are several areas where changes and improvements are needed to enhance it in a more effective way. The SpeedUP! Europe programme the European Union offers can be one step towards achieving these goals, towards creating a more functional, productive entrepreneurial ecosystem.
2.8.4. Startup Ecosystems in Amsterdam
According to a recent report on the Global Startup Ecosystems (2015), where cities are ranked by five major components: Performance, Funding, Talent, Market Reach, and Startup
Experience, Amsterdam is definitely developing its ecosystem, and has the potential to
become one of the most attractive locations for tech-startup founders. Of course Silicon Valley, and other American cities like New York, Los Angeles or Boston are still leading the list, but Amsterdam is continuously developing and has reached a prominent place by becoming one of the world’s top 20 startup ecosystems, the 5th hub within Europe and the 3rd fastest growing ecosystem.
The number of tech-talents is growing rapidly, due to the country’s excellent educational system, and also because entrepreneurs find Amsterdam an ideal location, a livable and affordable city, to get their business started.
There are several big companies that have their headquarters in Amsterdam. The city also abounds in accelerators and incubators such as Startupbootcamp or Rockstart, which definitely add to the success stories, not to mention the extensive support received from the government. One good example for government initiatives is the StartupDelta, which is trying to unite and better allocate startup resources.
However, further development is needed, in order to catch up with the best European cities like London, Berlin or Paris. For instance the biggest challenge for Amsterdam is the access to capital for startups. There is a lack of seed and growth capital, which holds back the success of entrepreneurs; there are a lot of inexperienced angel investors, who only invest in startups that have a positive cash flow. This insufficient flow of capital is especially prevalent among tech startups, despite the fact that financiers do seek the opportunities to invest in profitable startups. However, they often find that high-tech startups involve too high risks, it is therefore difficult to attract funding to finance technological risk -, or they do not see enough opportunities in them (Atena et. al, 2014).. Bank loan is not too attractive for entrepreneurs, because banks only lend money to those who can prove that they have stable cash flow, and with startups it is really difficult, especially at an early stage. VC funds could be extremely valuable for startups, however entrepreneurs need to give up a certain amount of equity, and dealing with investors is considered to be really time consuming. Subsidies and grants are evaluated quite positively, however the opportunities are limited. Entrepreneurs prefer this form of financing, because they consider it as “free money”, and the consortia can get even larger amounts of money, especially in European grants. The drawback of this type is that it requires a considerable time to acquire it, and it comes along with a lot of administration hustle.
Many entrepreneurs finance their startups from their own savings, and it is quite common to receive help from friend and family, because they believe in their ideas; however, most of the time these sums are not enough, and other alternatives are needed. Crowdfunding for example is a perfect way of raising money from those who believe in the product.
Tax incentives in The Netherlands allow great deductions. For example there is a great opportunity to decrease the amount of tax for R&D personnel, but this is more beneficial for
In terms of market reach, it scores within the top 10, which is really impressive, if we look at how small the Dutch market is; this success is due to the country’s international orientation and openness, which is visible in the ratio of the foreign customers they have. The level English language penetration is extremely high; more than 90% of the Dutch population is able to have a conversation in English.
2.9. The SpeedUP! Europe Programme
The SpeedUP! Europe is a disruptive, groundbreaking acceleration and support project co-funded by the European Union. It has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme, is part of the European Commission’s Future Internet Public Private Partnership Program FI-PPP and related to the "FIWARE" Future Internet ecosystem and open source software bricks. According to Olaf-Gerd Gemein – the coordinator of the programme -, and Stefan Stengel – €6.9 million have been invested into the startups already in 2015.
SpeedUP! Europe is an innovative accelerator program, providing financial and non financial-support such as coordination, entrepreneurial training and mentoring for European start-ups, with the use of the FIWARE technology. Every team who work in, or are residents of a country that takes part in the Seventh Framework Programme could apply to the programme. Approved projects are supported by one of the nine European business support organizations involved in the projects, located in Hamburg (Germany), Stockholm (Sweden), (Copenhagen) Denmark, and Amsterdam (The Netherlands). The local partners in Amsterdam are Webclusive, University of Amsterdam (UvA) and Crowdfundinghub.
At the start of the project 100 teams were selected from 13 European Countries (most of them from Germany), and received a funding of €50,000 to start. Later on during the project implementation they can apply for additional €20,000, with no repayment, or share transfer commitment. However, these teams have to meet certain conditions, such as “earning” credits by attending specific SpeedUP! trainings, workshops etc. This extra money can be received during the project phase, in order to add a new team member, purchase additional development equipment or software. On top of these, there is a winning award - taking place at the end of 2015 - for teams selected from the top 10 proposals. These finalists have the chance to present their projects at the Entrepreneurship summit in front of a high-profile jury. Three winning proposals will receive cash prizes, and additional mentoring. The team finishing in the first place will receive €300,000 (FundingBox, 2014). There are three milestones in total to be reached, based on the performance of the teams. At this point teams have reached the second milestone where they had to attend a pitching event where they were expected to present what they have achieved till then.
According to Olaf-Gerd Gemein, the program-coordinator of SpeedUP! Europe, approximately 37 coaches and 105 mentors are assigned, and work with the teams daily providing support and network to the projects. The physical hubs are responsible for increasing the chance of a team to get funding. At this stage, they have the opportunity to get in touch with business angels as well. There are training opportunities for the entrepreneurs on how to deal with and implement the projects, and they can participate in pitch training sessions as well. Of course, the Intellectual Property Rights are guaranteed.
As it was mentioned before, one of the main criteria for teams to apply for the program is the use of the FIWARE technology, which is an innovative library, a platform and a framework developed by 25 leading European IT companies. SpeedUP! Europe is one
adopt the technologies and assets provided by FIWARE, the core platform of the FI-PPP platform. The FI-PPP is a 500 million euro programme, including the 300 million euro contribution from the European Commission for internet-enabled innovation. At this point another question arises, and can be further investigated, namely why would the European Union invest such a huge amount of money in this programme, and how does it ensure that it meets the expectations? FIWARE technology has many advantages, and it creates a range of possibilities for start-ups to develop. The main benefit is that it accelerates the adoption of future IT technologies, and improves the business processes through the Internet. It is cost-effective, public, and royalty free. According to Dr. Tsvi Vinig, professor of Entrepreneurship at the UvA, the technology enables teams to accelerate their product development process. “By using FIWARE technology you don’t have to build
everything from scratch. If your product idea requires a GPS positioning system you can use a ready-made FIWARE module instead of developing a new one yourself” – he
explained (Sameri, 2014)
There are many talented people eager to materialize their skills who can take advantage of this opportunity. With this system, entrepreneurs, stakeholders, and technology providers can connect with each other to create a sustainable open innovation ecosystem. Entrepreneurs should follow their dreams and get out of their comfort zone, if they want to take advantage of the opportunities and allow themselves to be “investor-ready”. The program believes that there is a chance for everybody to become an entrepreneur, believing that “Entrepreneurs are made, rather than born.” (Olaf-Gerd Gemein, 2014).
3. Methodology
I have chosen the qualitative research methodology, to find an answer to my research question. According to Gephart (2004) qualitative research is highly descriptive, emphasizes the social construction of reality, and focuses on revealing how extensively theory operates in particular examples. Qualitative research is an appropriate choice if the researcher would like to get deeper and more detailed understanding of a phenomenon or event in the real-life.
I choose a deductive approach in my research. After finding, and sorting out the relevant information about the factors that create a sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem, I began to seek answers to the questions and sub-questions formed o n the basis of literature, analyzed the results and findings to see whether they support the theory.
The thesis is a single case study, in which I investigate a contemporary topic of entrepreneurship, and give an in-depth exploration of the complexity and uniqueness of the SpeedUP! Europe Project in a “real life” context (Simons, 2009). The study is a snapshot, because it is an ongoing project revealing new and new information on a daily basis.
The case study is exploratory; the goal is to discover all the general information about the topic with the use of primary and secondary data. The latter is collected from relevant academic articles and journals such as the ’Journal of Business Management’ or ’Harvard Business Review’ and data and information are gathered from surveys and associated websites like The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Entrepreneurial Institutional Policies or The Delta Entrepreneurship Network.
3.1. Semi-structured interviews
I collected non-numerical primary data with semi-structured interviews, asking open-ended questions. In the entrepreneurial ecosystem, there are different kinds of stakeholders, therefore in this case, I conducted interviews with the selected team leaders and – if the leader was not available – with team members of the programme, and also one of their mentors who is the coordinator of the hub located in Amsterdam. University of Amsterdam is one of the partners of the programme; therefore I had no difficulty getting access to the contact list of the teams. First, I contacted them via e-mail or phone call, and then I arranged meetings to make the interviews either face-to face, or via Skype call. There were 100 selected teams, and at the beginning 10 out of them were from The Netherlands. Interviewing the teams located in The Netherlands, and the professionals surrounding them, provided a sufficient basis for an in-depth analysis of the Dutch entrepreneurial ecosystem.
The goal w a s to find out whether SpeedUP! Europe programme fits into the recent theory of entrepreneurship ecosystems, and if it does, how can the individual factors and pillars become visible in the project. I assumed that the programme contributed to the growth of productive, innovation driven entrepreneurship in The Netherlands. During the interviews, I lead the conversation in such a way as to find answers to categories of questions. The interviews took approximately o n e hour long (between 45-70 minutes), and they were recorded with the consent of each interviewee, in order to make a transcript later on, for the more efficient analysis of the data. After making the transcript of the interviews I used NVivo coding, which accelerated the analysis, and made it more transparent for defining the categories, and recognizing the elements of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. After collecting both the primary and secondary data I had no difficulty in contrasting the two with each other.
The interview questions were based on a framework created by prof. dr. Erik Stam, Professor at Utrecht University School of Economics. In his report on “The Dutch Entrepreneurial Ecosystem” (2014) he summarized the key elements of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach, used as a guideline to the questions (See Appendix).
In order to make a research feasible, well structured, interview questions are needed. Time-management is also essential, because making and analyzing the interviews is extremely time consuming. Another possible limitation could have been the insufficient number of interviews I could make, because I needed to reach a sufficient number of people in order to make general comparisons and ensure confidentiality at the same time. The more complex and in-depth information I could get from interviews, the more difficult it was to compare the results, and analyze them.
The research was based upon 10 interviews. First, the Amsterdam Hub started with 10 teams, but at the first milestone one team dropped out so only 9 teams were left in The Netherlands, who could be part of the data collection. I managed to reach 8 teams and within the 8 teams I had interviews with 9 people. On the whole I interviewed 5 team leaders, and 4 team members (2 of them coming from the same team, because one of them was more informed about the entrepreneurial part of the project, while the other was more familiar with the technological part) and the coordinator of the hub in Amsterdam. Team leaders were not always available for interview, because most of the teams came from abroad, and the leaders were staying in their home country. One team leader refused the interview, because they were busy with a crowdfunding campaign. I managed to interview the coordinator of the Amsterdam Hub, who worked also as a coach in the project, and a professional in crowdfunding. The hubmaster managed to give more objective answers to the interview questions, comparing to the teams.
Luckily, most of the teams were available in their offices located in the centre of Amsterdam, and thanks to the supportive environment I experienced during the data collection; I could reach the teams with the help of the coordinator of the Amsterdam Hub. With the help of the office manager I got to be introduced to the teams, and with her support I was able to visit the hub, reserve quiet and private meeting rooms, and conduct the interviews.
3.2. Secondary data
There is a lot of public information published on the official website of the SpeedUP! Europe (www.speedupeurope.eu) and FIWARE (www.fiware.org), which helped with the analysis of the data. Social media platforms also provided extra information on the project, and the different milestones within the project. I gathered data from the official Facebook page of the programme as well, where the latest news, events, photographs etc. were published. I also joined the group called “Speed UP! Europe” on LinkedIn where I could gain access to group conversations about recent updates in the programme.
4. Research findings
The interviews were conducted between May and June, therefore all information is based on that phase of the project. The teams develop their projects continuously, causing changes to happen from week-to-week since they need to go through certain stages in the SpeedUP! Europe project. This is the reason why the information and results presented in the thesis reflect that specific period of the programme.
4.1 Introducing the teams
All teams interviewed were allocated to a specific sector, such as Cleantech, Smarcities, or Agribusiness. There were altogether 9 teams in the Amsterdam hub; 1 team leader could not attend the meeting because of their currently running crowdfunding campaign. In the following table the names of the projects are presented in the same form as the one found on the official website, and a brief explanation of what their project is about.
Number Team Short description
1. Fruitania A platform that helps food growers export their products and farmers to explore new markets.
2. ReTreat
A Remote Depression Treat Bracelet for use in healthcare ideal for treatment of diseases such as heart problems, diabetes or depression.!
3. SeeBat WebForest
The Application of the SeeBat and WebForest provides companies with a better insight into the status of the waste container (full, empty, partially filled) and can - therefore - plan effectively and efficiently the transport by
produce less CO2. Fewer trucks on the roads means less traffic-jams, which will help the economy and the environment (rt-bi.nl, 2015). 4. SmartPlace A device that creates Smart and Energy
Efficient Buildings and Places.
5. SODAQ (SRS)
Smart road salting in the Dutch city of Assen. They already had a successful crowdfunding campaign for a microcontroller they are using.
6. Speed Up Smart Farming
A device developed for agricultural purposes, to increase the efficiency of farming. The device collects data about the fields, soil, humidity, consumption etc., sends it to the cloud and using the data gathered, farmers can increase the efficiency of the farming process, save time, and money.
7. WasteWalk
An innovative e-health application for elderly people in the field of patient communication and interventions that promote lifestyle changes.
8. WEP
Wireless Energy Protocol. Charges the Electrical Vehicle efficiently and safely by using patented inductive power technology (wirelessenergyprotocol.com).
All the interviews were based on the phenomenon of “entrepreneurial ecosystems”, and according to this, seven main categories could be formed, all of them interconnected with each other. It could also be observed that one result, or one statement related to a specific part of the project could be related to more than one element of the ecosystem, but the reason for this is that the ecosystem is viewed as a holistic system, where the different pillars are interdependent, interconnected and can affect each other. The main categories
4.2. Accessible market(s):
This pillar includes the local and the global opportunities open to the products the teams are developing, and explain the reason why that specific product could be successful on that market, and also mentions the possible first customers, and the reason why the product could be beneficial for them. Due to the multicultural nature of the teams in the Amsterdam Hub (explained in detail later) the terms “local” and “foreign” markets can be somewhat confusing, therefore in the context of the thesis, and the research, “local” market means The Netherlands, and “foreign” markets refer to all European countries apart from The Netherlands.
Teams believe that they got selected into this programme, because their highly innovative product has a potential on the market, and at the same time they could give something back to the European Union as well. It is true that most of the products in the programme are really market ready. Each product is “smart” as it is connected to IT and/or the Internet of Things, and is meant to make life easier, and more efficient. Foreign Teams located in Amsterdam are grateful for the opportunity to participate in this project with their products, because their home-countries do not provide enough opportunities for them, or the entrepreneurial environment and culture are not developed highly enough for them to promote their devices there.
Different teams experience different aspects of life in The Netherlands. One team has its physical device in Bulgaria, and since it is presented and tested in a showroom, they are physically connected to Bulgaria in order to test and develop their product. They travel between Amsterdam and Sofia, in order to collect points, take part in workshops and benefit from mentoring. They cover the travel expenses from the money they receive from
All teams made some preliminary calculation, and market research concerning their products' potential on the market. If the product aims to improve health, decrease costs, or protect the environment it can be beneficial for all individuals.
“What we do is disruptive. We charge electrical vehicles wirelessly. There is absolutely no company that does what we do. At the beginning of 2014 there were about 200,000 charging points in the world for electrical vehicles. By 2019 there will be 20,000,000, so there is a huge estimated growth, and there will be a big demand for this kind of products.”
The interviewees think that The Netherlands is an optimal place for realizing their ideas, as it is described in the section entitled “Culture”.
4.3. Culture in The Netherlands
The Netherlands enjoys an extremely good location in Europe, when it comes to entrepreneurial activity. It is one of the most innovative countries, it is really easy to reach, and the penetration of the English language is extremely high, which makes communication with institutions really easy. Team leaders coming from abroad mentioned that due to the positive “image” of the country, they are trusted more if they present themselves as a Dutch startup, or a company operating in The Netherlands. All teams agreed that Holland is an optimal place for starting a business, and get their ideas realized.
“Dutch people are very liberal, open minded and straightforward about getting business done.” – stated one team member coming from abroad. In Holland they have more
friendly, startups receive tax benefits, and the chances to get funding are bigger. The history of Holland is also important in this respect, if we look at colonialism for example. It is also attractive for non-EU people to start their business here, because regulations suggest the startup visa.
Three interviewees mentioned The “Startup Delta” in The Netherlands, as a good example for the stimulation of entrepreneurship in the country. Startup Delta is an ecosystem for startups that aims to boost entrepreneurship where startups, investors, launching customers, governments and knowledge institutions work together (startupdelta.org, 2015).
All team leaders and members agreed that the idea of SpeedUP! Europe is really positive, and creates value for them. The teams had different motivations for joining the programme but most of them admitted the important role the grant had played in their decision.
The project significantly reduced the fear of failure, and encouraged participants to take risks. The fact that they would not have to pay back the money if they failed was extremely positive for them. It was interesting that in the project there were two types of entrepreneurs. On the one hand there were young professionals, who applied for the grant with their very first startup. On the other hand, there were experienced entrepreneurs and the way they approached the project itself, or handled certain issues within the programme was completely different.
Summing up the responses given by the teams, we can state that SpeedUP! Europe definitely adds value to and supports entrepreneurship, but does not have a major impact on it, due to the small number of teams operating in the Amsterdam Hub. In Hamburg, it does have an impact, if we approach it from an entrepreneurial and branding perspective.
4.4. Regulatory framework
Since SpeedUP! Europe is an acceleration and support programme funded by the European Union and part of the European Commission’s Future Internet Public Private Partnership Program FI-PPP mentioned before, all projects need to meet specific requirements and face strict regulations. Within this category there are three subcategories that teams often mentioned as an issue within the project.
4.4.1. Bureaucracy and Administration
As it has been mentioned before teams have to meet certain criteria in order to take part in the project. EU Projects are often seen as bureaucratic, complex and burdensome. In order to gain access to EU fundings, stakeholders need to deal with bureaucracy, administrative forms, and they need to understand EU policy. There are strict accountability and auditing rules, monitoring that the money is spent in the right way. Filling out different forms and time sheets often seems to be a waste of time, preventing people from spending enough time on their own development (Wolinsky, 2010). On the other hand, teams understood and accepted the need to deal with paperwork as long as it did not interfere with their own development.
“It is a lot of work, and it’s overdone. You need to tell every penny where it goes, and
I’d be developing instead of dealing with administration” – stated a team leader.
Giving away a lot of money for free will not create sustainable businesses, so entrepreneurs really need to work hard, and prove that the business they are doing is worth
the money allocated. At this point the question arises: is entrepreneurship compatible with bureaucracy? Entrepreneurship requires flexibility, and improvisation; sometimes people need to make quick or risky decisions, however, European Projects do not operate this way, as we have seen before. Does it suppress entrepreneurship; does it have an effect on creativity? When we came to the question whether Speedup Europe projects need to operate as lean startup the answer was quite ambiguous. According to the coordinator there are elements of a lean startup in the project, but its implementation is bureaucratic. He also says that for a European Project it is quite lean, but for an entrepreneurial project it is really bureaucratic.
4.4.2. Milestones
Teams with the best proposals who got selected into the project have to pass certain stages within the 9 months. They need to show development during each stage, and if they fail to meet the criteria, they are not allowed to continue any further. This is how the system motivates them to improve. Each stage is based on a point collecting system, with a maximum score of 30, where teams need to collect a certain amount of points in order to pass the stage in question. The first stage was about creating a Minimum Viable Product, a prototype. The second was about selling their product, and finding their first customers. Point collection is based on how actively and successfully there participate in the project.
Teams complained that the rush to collect the points is not compatible with the development. Travelling to Hamburg takes up a lot of time and money, and they’d rather focus on their own development, than be under control all the time. They felt this was in conflict with the individual characteristics of the entrepreneur.
On the other hand, half of the teams mentioned that it was completely understandable that there were a lot of rules and administration, because an objective tool was needed to judge teams. They thought that the root of the problem was that before the start of the project the coordinators were not prepared for all the administration 100 teams would require and the coordinators were simply overworked. The project structure was really complicated, and a lot of decisions were made in the last minute, they communicated things really late, and this caused a lot of confusion.
4.4.3. The Hamburg Hub
There are several physical hubs located in different parts of Europe, but the centre is found in Hamburg, Germany. Most of the teams are located there, and as it is seen on the official website of SpeedUP! Europe, the ratio speaks for itself. This is the reason why most activities are organized there, and therefore the hub there has a much more intensive life.
